Hi people , I am making a known neuron proposal for my neuron. My name is Levi Feldman. If you like what I think, follow my votes. The neuron is: 11781217201066824825. I will be making the known-neuron proposal sometime tomorrow. Feel free to ask me some questions here in this thread.
You can contact me here through this platform, or message me on Twitter: levifeldman. My dscvr username is: levs, my open chat username is: Levi, and my github username is: levifeldman.
Hello Levi, What is your vision for the Internet Computer? I am asking because before following your neuron decisions I would like to know what is your mental framework that will guide your decision process. Does it make sense?
Hi @levi, cool to see that you want to become a known neuron! Could you share a bit more how you plan to vote? Will you commit to voting on all proposals? Will you follow another neuron, or vote manually on specific topics, or all topics? If voting manually, since you’re one individual, do you think you will be able to always reliably vote on time?
Hi @Manu, thanks! At the start, I will follow the dfinity foundation’s neuron for exchange rate proposals and node provider rewards. Besides those, I plan to do a manual vote on each proposal and vote at least every couple of days. If a proposal that I plan to make a manual vote on passes by an absolute majority sooner than the voting period then it is possible that I may miss the vote.
I value proposals that create positive solutions for our world and that make our lives better and more joyful. I share the same vision of the world computer that Dominic Williams sees and I will use my unique perspective and foresight to contribute to the path that will get us there and keep us there.
You may know this already, but I just wanted to point out that voting is still open on proposals until the end of the voting period even if it is decided by the rules of Absolute Majority. This already happens today and enables anyone who didn’t vote before Absolute Majority to still have a chance to cast their votes.
Actually, the proposal does not have to be submitted by the owner of the neuron that is being registered. There are two different fields for the registered neuron and the submitting neuron in the command. I submitted the RegisterKnownNeuron proposal for both ICP Maximalist Network and for cycle_dao using my neuron that I use for all proposals, which is not the neuron that was registered in either case.
Your concern is valid. There was nothing that confirmed that the neuron that was registered is controlled by the organization that submitted the proposal. The only way this is addressed at this time is for the organization or person to recognize that they are being misrepresented and to speak up to the community before it’s too late. I also suppose there could be some sort of removal proposal if this does get through though.
Yes! Blessing a new replica binary, updating subnets with the blessed replica, and updating the nns canisters are the most consequential and meaningful and authoritative proposals. These are the ones that count. Motion proposals don’t do anything to the system and contrary to what some people think or assume, the dfinity foundation is not legally bound to implement code changes of a motion proposal.
Side point: The reward weights are way off for motion proposals.
Sure, thanks for the specific concrete questions!
I’ll start with proposal 54964 , the first thing I do is go through the proposal, look at the proposer, read through the summary that contains the release-notes, look through the payload data and check if the git commit is on github and the source code is available. If the source code is not available due to a security patch release or something else, as of now if the proposer is dfinity then I will most likely vote for it if the release notes check out but I could choose to vote no depending on the unique situation. If the source is available, the next thing I do is pull the source of the git commit of the proposed binary, build the replica myself, and check that the release package hash specified in the proposal payload matches the hash of my local build. if it does not match, I vote no. If it does match, I then check the git diff of the source code and look through the changes, as I learn more of the system my code look through will get deeper and more thorough. If everything checks out with the release notes and the code changes of the git diff I vote yes. If the proposer is not dfinity, the only way I will vote yes is if the proposed source code is available and I look through the code changes and everything checks out, most likely not happening until dfinity stablishes the tools and methods for outsiders to propose and update the replica.
For the proposal: 55539 If the replica is already blessed and I voted yes to bless the replica version, then I vote yes, otherwise I vote no. There can always be a unique situation if for some reason I think that the replica is not good for the subnet, or If a security hole or bug is found after putting the replica on another subnet.
For the proposal: 54295 I first go through the proposal, check the proposer, check the summary, read the release notes and check the payload. Then I follow the build instructions and verify the canister wasm hash. Then go through the source code and verify the code changes. If everything checks out and I think the code changes are beneficial, I vote yes. otherwise no.
It is my honour to get the votes and I am forever grateful for each person that voted yes . Thank you.
The vote did not pass, but my plans stay the same. The good news is that you can still follow my neuron: 11781217201066824825.
I will continue to vote and contribute to the system. I am now doing manual votes for the topics: 0,1,3,4,5,7,8 and I am following the dfinity neuron for the topics: 2,6,9,10. see topics here.
If I were you and you are still interested, you could have your named neuron as this seems to be a trend now to accept all applicants. I am against about all those questions about how you were voting just like if you don’t vote as they want, they vote against the your acceptance as a named neuron. Many member of this community does not get the point right TMO.
Meanwhile, I completely does not understand why they voted against your proposal at the time.
Although we can follow your neuron, it is much easier to get more followers with a named neuron.
And, to me, this is where the 10 ICP cost hurt. I would not be surprised that you have no intention to risk another 10 ICP to help decentralization of IC. I would not blame you.
Hey @levi, are you still voting manually on any of the proposal types you listed above? Have you started voting manually on proposal topic 13 - Replica Version Management. It is a new proposal topic intended to enable more people in the community to get more involved in blessing replica versions?
There are folks like @christian who are starting to manually vote on this proposal topic as he describes in his post today on Taggr.